Comments on: “Choice” is Not the Opposite of “Life”

By: mischiefmanager

mischiefmanager — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:43:13 +0000

PH.Dork, your title raises yet again the egregious failure of the pro-choice movement to win the rhetorical war. No, in the mind of the average person, choice is not the moral equivalent of life-life is a trump card every time.

For feminists, the right to choose IS (sorry, don’t know how to do italics here) the right to life-the life we want and deserve. But for most people not engaged in the issue, choice sounds like something frivolous-”Oh, should I choose the black shoes or the blue ones?” That word allows-indeed, encourages-the kind of thinking that Kissling engages in. If choice is based on whim and personal taste, then some choices are better than others. So “choosing” an abortion after the first trimester, or for reasons that aren’t dire, sounds selfish and flighty.

We need to use words more effectively to state our position-that abortion is about our lives-women’s lives. Without the right to abortion, we are not free, and thus, we can’t be the person we could be. Abortion access is freedom. Abortion access is life.

By: PhDork

PhDork — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:11:07 +0000

Baraquiel: thank you, that’s getting at it.

Dirty Laundry: Quite apart from laws that are unequally enforced for men and women (or white women and WOC, or cis-women and trans-women, etc.) there are laws that simply treat men and women differently. Laws are meant to protect as much as punish (okay, maybe I’m dreamin’), and surely you can’t argue that women currently receive equal treatment under the law.

However, as I go back to review your comments and try to figure out what cannibalism has to do with reproductive rights, I’m wondering if you’re really arguing in good faith. There are restrictions on abortion, quite a lot, actually, even if Kissling’s piece conjures the image of a free-for-all. The likelihood that these restrictions will be lifted is very small. My point is that framing the debate around under what specific, weird-o circumstances a woman “deserves” an abortion makes the default setting “women must have defensible reasons for termination, because it’s horrible, just horrible,” which sends us into the endless BS discussions we’ve been having for 37 years now about what exactly is a defensible reason. We (pro-choice advocates) need to adopt a perspective that throws out this “good reason” crap and instead make the debate about providing women desired medical treatment and ensuring a woman’s right to gestate/birth/raise a child when and only when she decides she is ready.

By: baraqiel

baraqiel — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:53:18 +0000

@DirtyLaundry – I think you’re misunderstanding PhDork. Laws often treat men and women differently. For example, it is illegal only for women to go shirtless. In many states, it is legal for someone to take a picture up a skirt worn by any person, but since 99.999% of people who wear skirts are female, that lack of legislation negatively affects women. When legislation is proposed that protects women from sexism-specific issues (such as the Ledbetter law, for example), many lawmakers protest. We don’t have sufficient laws to promote maternity leave or accessible childcare. There is no doubt that our laws (and not just the enforcement of them) fail to adequately protect women, especially poor women or women of color. Whether or not the trials that women go through because of our lack of protection under the law satisfy your definition of “unimaginable” (which, let’s be serious, was being used as a strong term for “bad”) is immaterial to how the law actually treats women.

By: DirtyLaundry

DirtyLaundry — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:42:58 +0000

“However, I am also aware that “people” disproportionally do these unimaginable things to women, and yet there is little concern for legislation to protect us, to say nothing of movements to deal with any just-in-case scenarios.”
PhDork- I may be mistaken but outside of reproductive rights there are no separate laws for women and men (unless you think there should be). So there is not a lack of concern for legislation on issues that mainly affect women (outside of RR) because the laws are there to protect men as well. There may be a lack of concern when the cases go to court or if they are even prosecuted, but it is not necessarily with the laws themselves.
And when I say unimaginable I’m not talking about things like rape or murder I’m talking about things like cannibalism. I’m pretty sure only 1% or less of the population engages in cannibalism but the laws are there just in case. Rape or murder are completely imaginable to me.

By: PhDork

PhDork — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:09:16 +0000

SallyRidden: Women, even women who are pressured by their societies to denigrate/destroy other females, win out over female fetuses. I’m only advocating abortion as something to celebrate as much as I’m advocating appendectomy as something to celebrate. Both are medical procedures that sometimes need to happen. When they are needed and do happen, that’s a good thing. It is good for people to have the health care they need.

There are different reasons for termination, and some of them will seem more legitimate than others, and of course people will disagree about what is “legitimate.” Like you, I think that terminating a female fetus for its femaleness is pretty crappy. But maybe that’s preferable to a girl being born and raised in a family enviroment that resents her. And in any case, restricting abortion is not the answer to sex-selective abortions that result in massive population imbalances. Feminist education/revolution is.

By: SallyRidden

SallyRidden — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:47:29 +0000

PhDork:

I think the thing that complicates the concept of “abortion is an issue about women, not about fetuses” is when the fetus is being terminated for being female. I don’t think a woman should have to listen to the state, but it doesn’t mean that I can celebrate her choice to get a sex-based abortion. I know that we aren’t supposed to, and I wouldn’t support a law that dictated it, but I still see a world of difference between choosing not be a parent and choosing not to be a parent of a girl.

By: PhDork

PhDork — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:17:28 +0000

Dirty: Term restrictions are not there to shame women, no. There are enough other things taking care of that angle. However, in many cases, they exist to punish them for the crime of fucking. My understanding is that fetal viability has a lot to do with the general ban on third-trimester abortions, but concern for maternal health is also an issue, since the further along a pregnancy is, the more dangerous abortion can be for the woman. Of course, there are also cases where continuing the pregnancy is considered a greater danger, which is why there is a whisper-thin, rarely exercised exception clause.

And the double-homicide charges against those who murder a woman and thus her fetus (because of or despite their pregnancy) which you mention are not, to my knowledge, reserved for pregnancies that are past 20 weeks (or whatever each state decides is viable). That’s clever lawyering used to whip up sentiment and outrage, and to lobby for harsher punishments. After all, the brain doesn’t necessarily die at the same moment the body does, and yet there aren’t reduced criminal charges if someone attempts to murder another and only succeeds in causing their brain death.

I am certainly aware that people do unimaginable things all the time. I am about as cynical a person as you can imagine. However, I am also aware that “people” disproportionally do these unimaginable things to women, and yet there is little concern for legislation to protect us, to say nothing of movements to deal with any just-in-case scenarios.

Regardless, the tiny percentage (again, 1.4%) of all abortions that happen after viability should not be the ones that set the parameters of the abortion debate. Policy based on the activities of outliers is bad policy.

We may simply have to disagree on the value of a fetus (viable or not) versus that of the woman who is hosting it in her body. I believe that abortion is an issue about women, not about fetuses, and it is for women to settle.

By: ferawle

ferawle — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:20:00 +0000

You know, what bothers me to no end about this discussion is the way in which people try to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ abortions.. even if I was a ‘slut’ getting pregnant ALL THE TIME and couldn’t quite deal with the prospect of having to change nappies (me being more into have unsafe sex with random men)… even then I should be entitled to do whatever I want with my body and have abortions. Period. There is no grey zone, because the existence of the grey zone depends on the assumption that the fetus (a clump of cells, that is) has rights in some instances, but not others – and that those may prevail over those of a woman’s. And that I do not buy. So I get so tired when people say it’s undesirable, but necessary sometimes; or when we talk about abortions under different circumstances and when they would be legit and when they wouldn’t. It’s all a woman’s choice, and to me it doesn’t matter what she has done to get pregnant. If I fuck up I don’t want the moral police examining whether I ‘deserve’ an abortion.

By: DirtyLaundry

DirtyLaundry — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:09:35 +0000

I also wanted to say that I don’t think term restrictions are there to shame women, but to respect the life of the person that is inside of the woman.
PhDork are you saying that term restrictions are insulting to women because no woman would ever do that? If that is the case I have to disagree, people do unimaginable things all the time. Maybe you just have more faith in humanity than I do. There are many laws we might deem unnecessary because we think nobody would ever do that but they are there ‘just in case’.

By: DirtyLaundry

DirtyLaundry — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:59:12 +0000

I think the reason 3rd trimester abortions on healthy fetuses are illegal is because at that stage the majority of people also take into consideration that the fetus has it’s own body and is also self-aware of it’s body. Not to mention that it can live outside of it’s mother’s body at that point so a termination is viewed as unnecessary. So in a way the law is not restricting what a woman can do to her body it is restricting what she can do to another’s body. This is why some states have laws to charge offenders with a double homicide when the fetus dies along with it’s mother. The fetus does not die the exact minute the mother does, it’s own life is separate from that of it’s mother.
I support the law the way it is now. I’m not sure I’d be able to check yes if a measure were put on the ballot to allow abortions at any stage.